WikiLeaks' Assange in Ecuador embassy London: Seeks political asylum

Well I just went though all nine pages of this thread and unless you are talking about one sentence or something buried deep in an article you posted to I found no real information on the USA punishing the Ecuadorian people. What are you talking about here? Sanctions? Naval blockade? What?

I also found where we talked about Naomi Wolf’s article. Here, let me be a gentleman and help a lady out: look on page 3, post #70, it runs through pages 4 and into maybe onto page 5.

I found no real information on the USA punishing the Ecuadorian people. What are you talking about here? Sanctions? Naval blockade? What?

As near as I can tell it is, so far, a warning by the Ecuadorean foreign minister who said the U.S. is not their "daddy" coming to punish them.

Even so, that's kind of an ironic question for you to ask on the 29th anniversary of the Sept 11 Chilean coup. I expect none of these things go uncounted, even if they are not immediately answered. Given the history of U.S. military and financial interference in Ecuador, the means are there.

No Fidel, when he's OUTSIDE the embassy, off its grounds, like on an airplane, they could change their mind and then arrest him or whatever. Once he leaves the embassy grounds he's fair game for whoever is pissed or whatever at him. Think about this: how smart is he if he thinks he can trust the nations he’s exposed as deceitful? Not very if you ask me.

Did we not cover this exact same scenario in the example posted wrt two Egyptians abducted at a Swedish airport by U.S. agents who promptly ferreted them off to some torture gulag? Pay attention.

No YOU pay attention, Assange is not some nobody terrorist suspect that can be whisked away and the media waved off with a "move on everybody, there's nothing to see here". Arrested and dragged to US Federal court pehaps (I don't want to see it) but disappearing off the face of the planet to be tortured NO WAY.

"A ripped condom given to Swedish police by one of Julian Assange's accusers does not contain the WikiLeaks founder's DNA, forensic scientists have reportedly found. His second accuser, now 29, who claimed to have been raped in her sleep by Assange, apparently told police she had not been opposed to having unprotected sex with him despite previous statements to the contrary. Assange denies the allegation of rape maintaining he has consensual sex with the second woman as well.."

People think of Sweden like they used to think about Canada. Benevolent, constructive, non-imperialistic, etc. There was a time when we prided ourselves with the peacekeeping tradition, many people still believe it in fact, in which the warrior culture of the military went along with but despised. Peacekeeping was once the only game in town with which to justify the department's share of the pie. But for all of the uses made of it by the military, the only thing it had to work with, the posture of impartiality became ill-suited to demand that we make our choice between 'with or against.' All of these events reveal the facades.

"Julian Assange will address permanent representatives to the UN General Assembly at a high level talk on the legal and ethical legitimacy of diplomatic asylum. RT has exclusive rights to broadcast the event live from the UN headquarters in New York..."

Of course, their likely response is more violence, more torture, more harassment of those who advocate free speech, and so on. Assange wisely drew attention to the loathsome hypocrisy of a regime that lectures other countries about "freedom", free speech, the right of dissent, against torture, etc. ... while carrying out the most despicable atrocities in its regular business. He paid particular atttention to Bradley Manning and drew little attention to Yanqui threats against him personally.

It's nice to see truth spoken to power so clearly. Assange had a few difficult moments but, overall, he pulled it off quite well. In a completely unnecessary concession, he even suggested that the current placeholder in the White House might have views that contradict the atrocities of his own regime.

How will the US regime respond to this detailed public exposure of their horrific hypocrisy? Who knows? But that more and more and more people should follow in Assange's footsteps goes without saying.

David Miller of Bloomberg News: If Sweden can guarantee that you won’t be extradited to the US, are you willing to give yourself up to the police?

JA: So, I understand that there was a question on the guarantees that had been asked of Sweden. Thus far, both the UK and Sweden have refused to give any guarantee in any measure at all. And the US and my home country Australia have even refused to assist in asking them, rather unfortunately. These countries are part of a strong intelligence and military alliance. It’s just part of the reality of dealing with them – that they do not like to put any roadblocks in front of the US, and I think it will be quite a hard battle to do that. I think it would be correct and right that those countries do so. But the state-to-state negotiations are of course a matter for Ecuador, which I and my legal team of course make representations [with]. Ultimately it’s a matter between states.

In any case, I don't quite get your question. JA has quite legitimate concerns about being tortured, "shot while attempting to escape" (the favourite Gestapo excuse for the death of a prisoner), "rendered" (as in a piece of meat), thrown in a dark hole and forgotten about, etc, etc.

Why should he promise anything, other than to stay alive and drive a knife into the heart of that monstrous regime just by being alive? Long live Julian Assange and hobbits like him. lol.

RT wrote:

Fairfax Newspapers: The US military officially designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as ‘enemies of the United States’ through declassified US Air Force counterintelligence documents. In light of these reports, do you believe this vindicates your decision to seek asylum in Ecuador, and what do you think this says – the statements made by the Australian and American governments regarding this issue?

Julian Assange: Those documents are now in full on the WikiLeaks website, just released tonight. They formed a part of the submission that we made to Ecuador. We had those documents for some months and of course were very concerned about them, but it was necessary to conduct, because of the sensitivities of some of the people involved in that investigation, to prevent their release until more recently. But yes, I encourage everyone to read those. It is an unusual position that I am in and the organization is in, and yes, it is difficult sometimes.

But it is also completely absurd. I mean, these claims against us are absurd. For example, that the US military should designate me and / or WikiLeaks as ‘the enemy’ in its formal investigation – investigation which carries a death penalty offense – into a person who was alleged to have come to my extradition hearing. And in the same document, it speaks about the victim being that of society, when there is no allegation that any documents have been released or published by us.

So I think that goes to the… to really quite sort of absurdist, neo-McCarthyist fervor that exists with some of these government departments in the US. I am hopeful that the White House over time is starting to shed that, but enormous wheels have been set in motion, as I described before, with over a dozen different US intelligence and investigative organizations churning through this, and it’s a very difficult process to stop once it starts. Even once everyone sees that it is completely absurd and counter to the values that the US should be trying to present to the world.

Why not just say that the USA can do whatever it likes, and let words mean whatever they feel like, like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, and be done with all these pathetic diversions? lol.

David Miller of Bloomberg News asked JA if Sweden can guarantee that him that he won’t be extradited to the US, is he willing to give himself up to the police. (I'd imagine the he meant the Swedish police as they are the only ones who want him for questioning.)

The question seems to be a pretty simple yes or no question, at least to me anyways. After reading JA’s rambling response I could not tell if he answered yes or no so I’m asking everyone here what they think his answer was… yes or no.

His answer was so far they haven't made the offer although they have been asked. Seems clear too me and the only response I would give in his shoes. His asking for the guarantee is the the answer to your question. Tell me why would he ask for a guarantee if he would not agree to return to Sweden when all the good folks in Sweden have to do is say yes and even Ecuador would throw him out the door for refusing a fair offer?

What's this, the verbal equivalent of water-boarding as an interrogation technique in a social media forum?

Julian Assange does not owe you or me any answer, whatsoever, on some issue involving complaints against him in Sweden. He is in danger of political persecution and worse, and he has sought and won asylum. Progressive people everywhere have a duty to assist him in every way to maintain that refuge - especially in the face of attempts to kidnap and deport him to a country which leaves open the prospect of shipping him to the United States.

It's pretty elementary, in my humble opinion. The rest is smokescreen, of the kind used daily against the fighters against imperialism. We do not side with the fighters against imperialism because of their purity of spirt and virtue in daily life. We learn to make distinctions.

No. His answer defers, appropriately, "But the state-to-state negotiations are of course a matter for Ecuador, which I and my legal team of course make representations...." since he is subject to any deal his asylum giver, Ecuador, works out with the multiple states involved.

Additionally, a narrow guarantee from Sweden that they "won't extradite him to the US" still means (after whatever transpires with the Swedish non-charges against him) they clearly would not grant him residency and would thus expell him to a 3rd country (eg Austrailia) which has no objections to his extradition to the US and has given no assurances they won't do it themselves.

The Australian government's lies and hostility to Assange are on record. Diplomatic cables revealed through freedom of information requests from the Sydney Morning Herald tell the tale. They illustrate that such a narrowly defined guarantee from Sweden in isolation is no guarantee at all:

Quote:

US intends to chase Assange, cables show August 18, 2012 .....Senator Carr has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange....However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year....Briefings for both Senator Carr and Ms Gillard suggest that the Australian government has no in-principle objection to Assange's extradition to the US....

David Miller of Bloomberg News asked JA if Sweden can guarantee that him that he won’t be extradited to the US, is he willing to give himself up to the police. (I'd imagine the he meant the Swedish police as they are the only ones who want him for questioning.)

A matter of life and death for Julian Assange is nothing to be left up to "I'd imagine" of someone like you or me. In fact you didn't do your homework on this, obviously, and I think you are trolling this thread. A complaint has been forwarded to the moderators.

Quote:

The question seems to be a pretty simple yes or no question, at least to me anyways. After reading JA’s rambling response I could not tell if he answered yes or no so I’m asking everyone here what they think his answer was… yes or no.

I can't tell whether that is trolling this thread so I'm asking everyone else here whether they think YOU are trolling this thread. Have a nice day.

While I don't agree with Bec on this one I wouldn't exactly call it obstructionist.

I never said, or meant, that Bec was being obstructionist. I said, and meant, that he was adopting a cross-examining inquisitorial style bordering on torture. He asked, at least three times: "Was that a yes or a no"? "So that was a yes?" Etc. etc. Whereas Assange, as Bec well knew, had already exercised his right to give an extremely crystal clear answer which was neither "yes" nor "no".

Bec, of course, must know this, because he's not lacking in the capacity to understand. I conclude that he's simply trying to discredit Assange. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Problem is, Bec can't find a shred of evidence to discredit him. So it's back to the inquisition.

I know, U. I was speaking more to the general question of arguing in good faith. And you seem to be handling him just fine.

Thing is, there also isn't proof positive that the U.S. is going to do anything here, even though most of us see a damning weight of circumstantial evidence. So like it or not, Bec is entitled to his view, even though I think he's dreaming.

There is no positive proof that I will be run over if I try to dash across a freeway, merely a large body of past events that suggest it might not be a great gamble. What exactly was the point you were trying to make? What are the odds that the US will not do anything to him if they have an opening present itself to them? I know I would not be risking my life or liberty or my pursuit of happiness by betting that the US government will be benevolent to me after I had been called an enemy of the state by its elected politicians.

While I don't agree with Bec on this one I wouldn't exactly call it obstructionist.

I never said, or meant, that Bec was being obstructionist. I said, and meant, that he was adopting a cross-examining inquisitorial style bordering on torture. He asked, at least three times: "Was that a yes or a no"? "So that was a yes?" Etc. etc. Whereas Assange, as Bec well knew, had already exercised his right to give an extremely crystal clear answer which was neither "yes" nor "no".

Bec, of course, must know this, because he's not lacking in the capacity to understand. I conclude that he's simply trying to discredit Assange. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Problem is, Bec can't find a shred of evidence to discredit him. So it's back to the inquisition.

I disagree, Assange has discredited himself by some of his own actions and doesn’t need my help doing so. And no, his answer to that question during the Q&A is not one of those situations. I just think he beat around the bush and didn’t really answer what seemed to me a pretty straight forward yes or no question. Apparently many here seem to feel otherwise (so be it) and unfortunatly you seem to think its torture to see someone question his answer.

I had no intention of torturing you; not that, now that you brought it up, I didn't find that pretty amusing. As a matter of fact I though of Mel Brooks' History of the World: Part I; (you gotta love the "nuns into the water" scen) when you mentioned the inquisition stuff. At least you didn't accuse me of trolling (which I also find amusing).

Many questions are not straight forward Yes or No questions and require nuanced responses. You seem intelligent enough to understand that concept which is why many of us wonder if you are just being disingenuous.

I should think my point was clear. There is no absolute proof I am aware of that the U.S. plans to extradite Assange, so Bec is perfectly justified in claiming it is nonsense, even though I happen to think it is willful blindness on his part. I disagree with him, but I don't see that he is being disingenous in any way. He has a strong opinion that is different than mine. Big deal.

and @ Bec

I don't see how Assange "discrediting" himself means he shouldn't expect protection from what may be a plot to get him to the U.S.

I think he is a fucking jerk and a fool on a number of fronts - from acting all proprietary about his "liberated" information, to these incidents in Sweden, if the accusations are true. Still, I don't begrudge him seeking asylum in Ecuador, nor do I think his behaviour means he has no rights to protection from persecution.

Smith, now you got me confused LOL, I never said, as far as I recall, he doesn’t deserve protection because he's discredited himself... Where did you get that idea from?

Here’s my whole “thing” with all this stuff: Assange has claimed he’s afraid to go to Sweden because he thinks the USA is going to extradite him once he’s there, (right?) not because he’s hiding from the Swedish police over these charges (right?). He wants everyone to believe what he is really afraid of, and I don’t blame him, is the 1000 pound gorilla called the USA that wants to put him on trial for espionage or whatever and (I know I’m say this twice) he’s afraid if he goes to Sweden he’ll be extradited to the USA (and never be seen again according to some of you).When Britain decided to extradite him to Sweden, at Sweden’s request, he ran to the Ecuadorian embassy and sought political asylum (fine by me).

The question was, and I realize it was hypothetical, if Sweden agrees (with Him) NOT TO extradite him to the USA if he goes to Sweden (remember that’s the whole reason he’s hiding in the embassy right now, he’s hiding from the USA not Sweden) would he be willing to go to Sweden to face the police. At least that’s my take on the question, yours may differ. If there’s no chance he’d be extradited to the USA he shouldn’t be afraid of the Swedish police and should have said, be it in along winded statement, yes.

But he didn’t and I’m willing to bet it’s because he’s also afraid of the Swedish police. Of course that is all explained and justified by conspiracy and plots and all that other speculation. He’s killing two birds with one stone by playing the USA card on everyone and it seems to be working, at least here on babble anyways.

I'm also still trying to figure out how "world events" is going to free him up from all this.

I believe he has asked for assurances from Sweden that they will not extradite him, and they have not said yes. Until that gets resolved any questions to him regarding that is just a hypothetical game of chicken, no?

Correct, and I understand that. My point is in the scenario brought up in the question by that reporter Sweden HAD assured him they would not extradite him to the USA. The reporter basically asked him if he were safe from going to the USA would he go to Sweden at the request of the police there… he didn’t really say yes he would. Why is that? I see no reason for him to have said he'd not go if that were the case aside from the fact he's hiding from something other than the USA. What could that be?

Oh and will someone put another quarter in the merry-go-round ride we're on... it's about to run out of time.

There aren't too many smart politicians who would commit to a course of action based on "what if" because the devil is always in the details. I get that you're disappointed that he's not stupid enough to fall for that.

The question is irrelevant because there is no such offer on the table, although Assange has invited it. If they want to find out what an acceptable offer is, it seems to me the next move is theirs.

"Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks is releasing over 100 classified documents detailing US Department of Defence procedures for running Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and other prisons where terror suspects are detained. The first batch of the documents released is the 2002 Camp Delta - Guantanamo Bay prison Standing Operating Procedure manuals.

'This document is of significant historical importance. Guantanamo Bay has become the symbol for systematized human rights abuse in the West with good reason,' WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said...'

And what would the negative consequences be for him if he answered yes?

I'll presume, for the moment, you either didn't read, or didn't understand, my previous post and will spell it out.

Assange's lawyers and the Ecuador embassy have repeatedly tried to work out deals with the completely intrasengent Swedish government.

How can he say "yes" to an agreement that has not been made by a Sweden which refuses to negotiate?It's much like saying "yes" to someone who offers to buy your car, who then throws you a nickle for it saying, "you agreed to sell it".

An open-ended "yes" to a non-existent agreement invites abuse by the Swedish government:that is, the Swedes gov/prosecuter says: "Ok, we wont extradite you to the US, so you must come to Sweden like you said you would". There is then zero allowance for post facto negotiations by virtue of his prior consent.

To be clear, a detailed, just agreement is ABSOLUTELY necessary because of the following sequence:

1)Even if charges are never laid (a very real possibility) Assange will be incarcerated until they decide what to do with him (It is Swedish pro forma).

2)When the Swedish Gov/prosecution "releases" him, (he will obviously not be granted residency status in Sweden,as he once requested) as an illegal he will remain in custody subject to immediate deportation.

3)Obviously, Assange would to choose be deported to some state non-subservient to the US's contrived extradition request (for, example, Ecuador) but under custody, with no legal status, he would have no say.

4)Sweden would almost certainly deport him to a country that would be compliant with US extradition requests--It may be that the country is his homeland, Australia (where Aussi government exchanges with the US government, obtained by the Sydney Herald, have indicated they would be agreeable such requests).

Without a prior agreement worked out by his lawyer, all this necessarily proceeds from your insistence of a "simple" "yes" or "no".

Dreamworks new (leaked) film script "The Fifth Estate" smears Wikileaks--but also fans the flames for Iran war:

Quote:

...In a telephone interview late Friday, Assange said that the film's plot revolves around a fictional mole in Iran's nuclear program who discovers that the country has nearly finished building an atom bomb and will soon be in a position to load it onto ballistic missiles. The film has the informant fleeing to Iraq when WikiLeaks publishes his name among its massive trove of classified material.

Assange says the whole story is "a lie built on a lie," claiming that the U.S. intelligence community generally believes that Iran stopped comprehensive secret work on developing nuclear arms in 2003, and that, in any case, the world had yet to see evidence of a case in which WikiLeaks had exposed a CIA informant...

Yet the propaganda never sleeps : note the story here says that it is merely Assange "claiming" US intellegence believes Iran stopped its bomb research in 2003.

How difficult would it have been for them to verify that that assessment is actually made by US intellegence?

From Reuters:

Quote:

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.

That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003....

"The least we can do is raise our voices to protect Julian Assange and Bradley Manning - who have made such brave attempts, at the cost of their own freedom, to expose war crimes and defend freedom and democracy..."

Who but a conspiracy theorist could suggest such a thing about Sweden, I'm sure the Government's advisor , Karl Rove, could correct that misapprehension.--though renditioned whiners such as Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery might moan:

Quote:

...Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[1] The forced repatriation was criticised because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers....

Does one really have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that the US is out to get Assange? I guess that would be right up there with thinking Bradley was being persecuted and tortured for being a whistle blower. Nope not the good ole USA protector of the worlds freedoms.

"...As Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote in the Guardian last August. 'The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction...

The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. Assange has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"